Shorter Virginia Ironside: Most Adopted Kids Would Rather Be Dead, Anyway

According to author and columnist Virginia Ironside, most adopted kids would be better off dead. As would most children she considers “unfit”. In fact, she says, a “loving” mother would smother a sickly child with a pillow, because the “suffering” of being ill makes that life meaningless and not worth living. She made these vile assertions in defense of abortion while appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live during a discussion grossly entitled “Can abortion be a kindness?” First, her odious attempt to argue that abortion is a “loving choice” because some kids, in her mind, are unwanted. Her tunnel-visioned, sad excuse for a mind can’t seem to fathom the fact that the children are always wanted, by someone. You know, like people with hearts and compassion.

Not having an abortion can amount to selfishness…

Abortion can often be seen as something wicked or irresponsible but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act. If a baby is to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely abortion is the act of a loving mother.

I was rendered speechless when I first watched this. Killing a child for being inconvenient to someone is “loving, moral and unselfish”?: So, having a baby is, therefore, selfish? Besides her utter lack of a soul, she is completely morally bankrupt. And I think she has some explaining to do to very happy and loved children who have been adopted as well as to the mothers who, according to her, were so selfish as to give that child life.: My friend, Rick Sheridan, can teach her a thing or two about what an actual unselfish act is. His adopted baby girl can also teach her what a loving mother actually does. Her mama gave her life and gave her A life. She didn’t kill her. She unselfishly bore her and gifted Rick and his wife with a beautiful baby girl. I suggest Virginia look at a picture of Rick and his beautiful daughter and try to explain to her why she would have been better off dead.

And I think that if I were a mother of a suffering child, I would be the first to want I mean a deeply suffering child I would be the first one to put a pillow over its head. I would with any suffering thing and I think the difference is that my feeling of horror suffering is many greater than my feeling of getting rid of a couple of cells because suffering can go on for years.

Hey, you know what else can go on for years, Virginia? Someone’s life. You should know. You authored a book called The Virginia Monologues — 20 Reasons Why Growing Old is Great.: Yet, you’d willingly kill a child and not give him or her that chance to grow old. Growing old is only great for you and whomever you deem fit enough, huh?

In ancient Sparta, babies who were considered handicapped or in any way not perfectly healthy were exposed to the elements, left on a mountainside to die.: Have to “purify” society and all! That was a long time ago and thankfully modern civilization has come a long way.

Now we use pillows.

Gee, it’s too bad we don’t have a fancy, new-fangled thing called medicine. To pro-abortionists, an illness is a reason to kill a baby. In fact, they believe that life is expendable for any reasonif it doesn’t fit into your personal plans. This includes life that is outside of the woman’s body. Ms. Ironside, like most pro-abortionists, also fails to mention those pesky babies who won’t cooperate and who survive abortion attempts. Much like our President, who gives them so little thought that he, as a Senator in Illinois debating a Born Alive bill, said this:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it– is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead..

However you want to describe “it”. Sort of like the suffering “things” Ms. Ironside referred to above. And, not coming out limp and dead. How dare they insist on having the human will to live and the strong spirit to survive.

The decision is always portrayed as being inherently irresponsible and destructive — Ironside argued that, if it prevented an unwanted child or a child being born profoundly disabled, then it was a good decision that a woman could be proud of. It wasn’t the most tactful pro-choice argument you’ve ever heard (at one point, she alludes to “fatherless” children in the same bracket as the unwanted: that will enrage a few single mothers), but it wasn’t a radical new shift in pro-choice thinking.

Yeah, that’s the problem: It might be offensive to some single mothers. The moral bankruptcy is staggering. However, at least she’s honest. It is NOT a new shift in pro-abortion thinking. This is what they believe and it always has been.

The reason it’s controversial is twofold: first, pro-choicers have totally backed out of the abortion conversation, which has in consequence become dominated by anti-abortionists; second, because Ironside collapses “disabled” and “unwanted” into the same category. This is pretty insulting to disabled people..

Oh, we wouldn’t want to be insulting! Killing is okay, but insulting? That’s taboo! Unless of course, you are one of the “unwanteds”. No one cares what you feel.

Of course Ironside is not waging a war against the disabled: she simply said “life isn’t a gift per se”. There are plenty of circumstances that make it more burdensome than joyful.

They have taken the miracle of life and have made it expendable and burdensome. On purpose. There’s the difference between Ms. Ironside and I, and others like me, right there. We know that life is a priceless gift. A child’s life has infinite value that cannot ever be fully measured. No alleged burden can take away from that fact, nor from the multitude of moments of love and joy, of human touch and loving arms, of beauty and grace, of happiness and wonder.